I keep wondering if: the impact of a certain chemical industrialisation indeed leads to this sharp increase of diseases, and this type of economy is avoidable; why is this still accepted by the majority in our democratic societies?
I just checked a short preview of this documentary, that provides some figures on the impact of chemical pollution on human health:
In Europe 70% of cancers are linked to the environment: 30% to pollution, 40% to food.
In Europe cases of cancer in children have been increasing by 1,1% yearly for 30 years.
In France the number of cancers in males has increased by 93% in the last 25 years.
In Europe every year 100,000 children die of diseases caused by the environment.
These figures are copy pasted from the promotion site of the movie. The sources of these numbers are not provided, but at this stage I take them for granted. The very pressing point is that a lot of the pollution, and its horrible consequences in the form of most painful cancers, human lives that are dramatically shortened; is in fact avoidable. The massive use of agrochemicals are most likely redundant and can be replaced by environment/human friendly solutions. The documentary provides a telling example: In a little French school, the canteen has decided only to provide organic food. The decision is based on the concern of the diseases caused by the industrial and agrochemical pollution. I keep wondering if: the impact of a certain chemical industrialisation indeed leads to this sharp increase of diseases, and this type of economy is avoidable; why is this still accepted by the majority in our democratic societies? In one of the coming blogs I will post on this puzzle of the acceptance in democracies. Next to this I will also come back on the figures of cancer linked to (agro)chemical pollution, as Anne Marie Monique Robin has written an astonishing chapter on the rise of cancers. For instance she clearly refutes the argument that the rise in cancer is linked to the aging population. To be continued…